Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui  Heh. No, I hold the lofty position of Junior Web Developer at a startup.  But I've spent the entirety of my teenage life arguing about how science is very bad no good evil, so I was exposed to plenty of refutations.
This is possible. Some of the core assumptions of science conflict with some of the core assumptions of other systems of thought, including Subjective Reality.
I disagree.
Being as I have not been to the next reality, I cannot answer that.
I am not playing with words. Not everyone thinks, believes, or knows as you do, David21. I cannot expect to understand your perspective unless you help me to do so. It seemed evident to me that I was misunderstanding you, so I decided to ask, rather than continue to make mistaken assumptions.
As such, I have two follow-up questions:
1) What is God, and how do we know if we're moving toward God?
2) If we are all moving towards God, and thus forward, then how can anything not be a "way forward"?
I would point you here: Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I didn't think to do that, last time.
Here is a place we disagree about the nature of existence. A matter of definition, really. Existence, for me, includes anything that has been thought about or considered. A thought can exist, because it was thought.
Perhaps. That's a lofty claim.
I'm using it to flesh out my own ideas and my capabilities in communicating them.
Of course. Few are the enlightened.
Will you ever come to a conclusion if you do not start moving towards one?
I shall quote a poem I read the other day:
And then I shall quote from the Twelve Tenets of Shh!
Feel free to click through.
And perhaps we must argue in order to find out. Or perhaps we must not argue to discover it. Who knows? If you will not argue, then you will not. If you will, then you will.
The important thing is to choose. And then, to choose again. |
Sometimes when people come across science it goes straight over their head. But I guess you are right that science is understandable if you are assuming all can get to grips with the very basics e.g. atomic structure. However, quite a few people find relativity challenging. As you may know, relativity is based on quantum physics and now scientists are proposing that the universe works along these lines.
I've heard a lot of psychics say that people philosophise on the other side, much as we are now, but I've never heard them say that scientists are probing the ethereal realm with their complicated devices. From what I have read in books like "Life after Life" and others that follow a similar theme, science cannot restrain the afterlife within its very restricting laws. This is where I draw my opinion from about how science may have no place on the other side.
Regarding the words; I did hope that I used vocabulary that was and familiar to all, but I guess you are quite right, words can take on different meanings depending on the context they're in and the way that they are perceived.
What is God? This is the question to end and start all questions! I personally do not know what God is. And I don't know whether we are moving towards him, but, rather foolishly, I put a little faith into books like "A Course In Miracles" and hope that we are all the same, all equal and essentially all one. It's a question that I'm going to have to spend the next seventy years of my life wondering. I have contradicted myself. If I truly believe that we are all moving towards God, then how can I not believe science is a way forward? My mistake. I guess on initial observation it would seem that science is moving away from God in that it often seems to be replacing religious thought that has existed for millennia. If, however, science allows us to learn more about ourselves, perhaps it isn't so bad? I guess I allowed some of my own emotions to influence my answers. Often I feel that scientists are pompous and pretentious and that irritates me. I shouldn't let my emotions govern my thinking, though.
I don't usually trust a source like wikipidia - just about anyone could have authored the answers within its pages.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe to argue isn't so bad. But I can't help wonder how much of it is lead by the ego. The ego doesn't exist in the next realm. I suppose we have it here to learn.
Perhaps a conclusion is a fate for the ego. If there was no start there would be no conclusion. We have to come to conclusions when considering many things. But actually having to consider something is down to the ego. When we are apart of God, there is nothing to consider, no goal to be reached, no conclusion to be made - as ACIM suggests, nothing unreal exists, nothing real can be threatened, so why make defences and arguments.
And you are right, we must choose to question or not....